Re: Blue Field Proposals

[Benjamin Austin <jedi@ecn.purdue.edu>]

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Sean L. McLane wrote:

> 
> Here they are, as I intend to present to the GM Meeting.
> 
> -Sean
> 
> -------------------
> 
> Pseudo-scientific treknological explanation of Blue Fields:
> 
> When someone is placed in a blue field, Time is not stopped, but rather they 
> are taken out of the standard spacetime perceptual universe, and transported
> through the fourth dimension (that of time) to another point in standard 
> spacetime. The Blue Field that is perceived by observers still in the standard
> spacetime is not actually a field, but rather an analog image of what is being
> transported. The PFM (pure freaking magick) allows the image to stay locked 
> with the frame of reference from which it was removed, to the point where
> the subject of the spell effect is returned to normal space time. For the
> effects that only last 24 hours, this is a set duration, or a specific move
> through the fourth dimension. The effect that is permanent until revoked is
> indefinite, moving the subject through the fourth dimension until the effect
> can be dropped. The reason a revocation can be used on the image is because
> the image is an inherent part of the spell effect, and the revocation stops
> the effect, which is moving the subject through the fourth dimension. When
> it is revoked, the subject suddenly drops back in to standard spacetime, with
> the apparent effect of the 'blue field' dropping.

Huh? 

> 
> ***********
> Do you agree with this proposal?           Yes_____   No_____
> ***********
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What is 'immobile'?
> 
> Here's a suggestion:
> 
> The parameters of most magickal effects are determined by the perception of
> the caster. A large number of spells won't work if the subject is not in 
> the caster's line of sight. None will work if they are too far from the caster.
> 
> Given that, I propose that immobility is defined by the perception of the
> caster as well. To all appearances, the ground does not move. A boat, however,
> does move. The argument may be made (and I expect it to be made, which is why
> I attempt to refute it beforehand) that to the perception of the caster, the
> boat is still, and the world is moving around him. This may be so, except 
> that the caster KNOWS the boat is moving with respect to the world, not the
> other way around.
> 
> Therefore, Blue Fields that are cast are immobile with respect to the ground,
> or whatever other frame of reference there is, if there is no ground in 
> perception. This final phrase allows for oddball situations like spaceships, 
> and air pockets. If a space ship appears to not be moving, and the caster 
> does not know it is moving, (an unwilling or unknowing passenger) the Blue
> Field will stay with the ship. If the caster knows the ship is moving, then
> the BF gets left behind, staying motionless with respect to the surrounding 
> perceived environment (It moves with the galaxy, because the caster cannot
> perceive the galaxy's movement). In an air pocket, the Blue Field would remain
> stationary where it was cast, relative to the surroundings.
>  
> As always, people can always come up with loopholes, like Endwarfing yourself
> small enough to fit in someone's pocket, and deferring spells on the pocket
> lint therein and then timestopping them. These special cases are subject to
> GM interpretation, but GMs should report how they adjudicated oddball things
> like this, so that consistency can be maintained.
> 
> 
> ***********
> Do you agree with this proposal?           Yes_____   No_____
> ***********
>